Olivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael)

Fine Gael will not oppose approval of this agreement. I support it because I agree with its intent. I realise that terrorism and international crime is a real threat. We had several examples of international crime within our own borders in the past few days and terrorist threats more recently in Great Britain and less recently in Spain and other countries. Fine Gael realises that the world is not a safe place and that agreements such as this one may be necessary to safeguard innocent people. I am also conscious that trade and tourism depend on international flights going from Ireland to the United States, that that is essential and would stop abruptly on 31 July if we did not approve it. For those reasons, Fine Gael will vote approval for this agreement.

I am outraged, however, at the way the process is being handled. I note the Minister's remarks that the agreement has been in the Library since last night but we had no way of knowing that. I received a very brief briefing note last night and as the Minister is aware the relevant spokespersons were engaged with the Roads Bill all day yesterday. I appreciate this has only just been passed by Cabinet and given that they got such little notice I was somewhat tolerant of the fact that we got such little notice. However, I was annoyed that when the Minister's press office was asked about this by the media it rubbished the Opposition's reservations and complaints about the way the process is being handled and the speed with which it was being pushed through the House without adequate scrutiny.

The Government and the European Union knew that this agreement had to be replaced before 31 July. The EU is aware that Ireland has a constitution. Other countries may not have to put it through their parliaments but we have a constitution. The Irish people voted for the Amsterdam treaty. We inserted a clause in the Constitution, as a result of that treaty, stating that any further international treaties would be the subject of Dáil approval. Dáil approval presupposes that we know what we are talking about and that we have an agreement which we have analysed and debated. We owe it to the public to do that. I would have thought the Government would have been sensitive to that commitment given to the public when they voted for the Amsterdam treaty in view of the fact that we will be voting on another treaty within 12 months. If that is the way we treat commitments we have given the public when they vote for a treaty that is promoted by the Government, it does not say much for the Government's word when it then expects a treaty of significance such as this one, to be approved. This was a sensitive treaty given that its first draft was thrown out by the European Court. It is not an insubstantial treaty. It may be brief but it is not unimportant. It deals with an important matter and was for that reason thrown out by the European Court of Justice when the first agreement was put to us because it lacked any proper legal basis.

The new agreement requests 19 pieces of passenger name data instead of the previous 31 pieces. In the absence of the agreement we had no way of knowing until just before I came into the House — it takes some time to scrutinise a treaty — what these 19 pieces were and how they were related to the previous 23. Were they a complete replacement for them or an amalgamation of what went before? Without that kind of information we are talking in a vacuum and pretending to scrutinise something we know nothing about.

I also want to address the issue of sensitive data that is part of the new agreement. As the Minister points out, the EU and the US have agreed that all sensitive data such as ethnic origin or religious beliefs will be filtered out and deleted by the Department of Homeland Security except in exceptional cases. If that is supposed to be an assurance it is a laughable one and the Minister must forgive us for being sceptical about such a provision. The main focus of terrorism protection is on extremists, and Muslim extremists in particular. The aim of this type of legislation is to get that kind of information. That this is the focus of international security and terrorism prevention measures belies the commitment to filter it out. The agreement states that it will filter it out if it does not need it. What sort of agreement is that? It is a nonsense to put that in as an agreement. I understand the reason they want the information but to pretend that they will not take the information is a nonsense.

What really bothered me was the terms "filtering out" and "sensitive information". It refers to the EU PNR data, as specified by the PNR codes and terms which the Department of Homeland Security has identified in consultation with the European Commission. These matters have been agreed in private. We do not know what they are or what are the codes. What is the information included in these codes to which we are now being asked to give approval? It is not in the agreement. It is telling us that there is such an agreement outside this agreement but we do not know what it is. We do not know the codes and terms that are being used by different airlines and so on. We have no way of knowing and are being asked to give our approval to something we know nothing about.

The way in which the Department of Homeland Security collects, uses and stores all passenger data was left unanswered in the interim agreement we discussed last October. I now find it remains unanswered. The previous agreement made reference to undertakings; that is now the exchange of letters. We do not know what is in the letters. There is more outside the agreement than in it yet we are expected to nod it through. I have not seen these letters. I do not know what is in the detail of them. I do not know if the Minister knows. Perhaps we are not meant to know and if that is the case, the guarantees that data and privacy is protected is weak protection because we do not know what is being protected.

Another concern is the number of bodies within the United States to which this information is being transferred automatically. I do not know if the commitments given by the Department apply equally to the other bodies which have a role in security in the United States. Obviously, the more bodies that get this kind of information, the more potential there is for its abuse. As part of the agreement the Department of Homeland Security will extend to non-US citizens the provisions of the US Privacy Act. On the face of it that appears to be a welcome measure but its provisions seem to be only about providing redress to data subjects seeking information about their passenger name data. I would hope it would go further and give further legal protections from the US authorities to those who may suffer actual invasion of their privacy rather than just simple information.

I would like confirmation that the opt-out clauses in the interim agreement that allowed the EU to stop the transfer of data if it believed the standards are being breached or their continuing transfer created an imminent risk to data subjects are still in place in the new agreement.

Another concern that has been widely expressed is the length of time that the data has been held. This is one of the issues that was raised when the interim agreement was discussed in October last when it was felt that three and a half years is far too long, and yet now we find the length of time has been increased to seven years and, taking into account the eight dormant years, that effectively makes it 15 years. I can understand building a profile of people over a couple of years, but one begins to wonder is it necessary to keep that kind of information on people for 15 years. It is a case of big brother gone mad if one is keeping, over a period of 15 years, a profile of intimate information about people, including their credit card details, travel itineraries and who they travel with.

One of the issues which had not been included and about which we all expressed concern was the lack of reciprocity in the interim agreement and I am pleased to see that there is at least a mention of it in the agreement, although it does not seem as comprehensive as the commitment we are giving. The information that we are giving to the US is essential to get a flight into the US. What we are being promised by the US is that it would actively promote co-operation of the airlines within its jurisdiction. That is a long way short of a reciprocal agreement, although it is a step in the right direction and at least it acknowledges that we on this side of the Atlantic Ocean have concerns about our citizens and that terrorism can originate anywhere. Reciprocity is very much lacking in the agreement. The agreement should be reciprocal.

As I stated, my party will not obstruct the passing of the motion because regardless of our concerns about the use to which the data are put and, indeed, the process, we are anxious that aviation traffic across the Atlantic Ocean continues. I am sure we would get little thanks from all those who have booked summer holidays in the United States if they found that they could not go, but it is a serious issue. It is fundamental to Irish business that we continue trade with the United States and although Dáil approval is required for this agreement, there is a gun to our heads in a sense in that we have little option but to agree to it.

I recognise that the world is not a safe place and that we must trade some of our personal privacy and freedoms to ensure the safety of all innocent citizens. However, I ask the Minister, to the extent that he can and through the EU, to ensure that all the protections and assurances that have been given by the US to protect data on innocent travels are rigorously enforced and that the data flow stops if there is a breach of any of the assurances that have been given.

See this speech in context